Efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN 3 and XT in smaller Asian anatomy

Real-World Comparison of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Current-Generation Devices

Few studies have reported comparisons of out-of-hospital clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the era of current-generation valves that reflect the real-world situation. Data on patients with severe AS aged 65 years or older who underwent TAVR or SAVR between 2015 and 2018 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service in Korea and clinical event rate was analyzed. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1 year. The cohort included a total of 4623 patients over 65 years of age, of whom 1269 (27.4%) were treated with TAVR. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2120 patients were included in the study. TAVR was associated with reduced 1-year mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42−0.70; p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of ischemic stroke (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.43−1.20; p = 0.21) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 1.10; p = 0.74). Permanent pacemaker insertion was observed more frequently in the TAVR cohort (9.4% vs. 2.5%, HR: 3.95, 95% CI: 2.57−6.09; p < 0.001), whereas repeat procedures were rare in both treatments (0.5% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.499). In the nation-wide real-world data analysis, TAVR with current-generation devices showed significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to SAVR in severe AS patients.

Duration of Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Although current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 3 to 6 months following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there are no studies directly comparing outcomes of different durations of DAPT following TAVR.

Methods and Results

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database were searched through November 2020 to identify clinical studies that investigated single antiplatelet therapy versus DAPT use following TAVR. Studies using oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapy concomitantly were excluded. The DAPT group was subdivided by the duration of DAPT. We extracted the risk ratios (RRs) of major or life‐threatening bleeding, stroke, and all‐cause mortality. Four randomized controlled trials, 2 propensity‐score matched studies, and 1 observational study were identified, yielding a total of 2498 patients who underwent TAVR assigned to the single antiplatelet therapy group (n=1249), 3‐month DAPT group (n=485), or 6‐month DAPT group (n=764). Pooled analyses demonstrated that when compared with the single antiplatelet therapy group, the rates of major or life‐threatening bleeding were significantly higher in the 3‐ and 6‐month DAPT groups (RR [95% CI]=2.13 [1.33–3.40], P=0.016; RR [95% CI]=2.54 [1.49–4.33], P=0.007, respectively) with no difference between the 3‐month DAPT versus 6‐month DAPT groups. The rates of stroke and all‐cause mortality were similar among the 3 groups.

Conclusions

In this network meta‐analysis of antiplatelet therapy following TAVR, single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin had lower bleeding without increasing stroke or death when compared with either 3‐ or 6‐month DAPT.

Anticoagulation With or Without Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulants (OAC) with or without antiplatelet therapy (APT) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TVAR) in patients with an indication for long-term anticoagulation therapy, the optimal antithrombotic strategy remains unknown in these population. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the outcome of OAC alone versus OAC with APT following TAVR in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through May 2020 to identify clinical trials that investigated OAC alone versus OAC with APT following TAVR in patients with AF. From each study, we extracted the hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios of major or life threatening bleeding, stroke, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS

1 randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies were identified, which enrolled a total of 2032 patients with AF who underwent TAVR assigned to the OAC group (n = 722) or OAC with APT group (n = 1310). Pooled analyses demonstrated the rate of major or life threatening bleeding was significantly lower in the OAC group compared to the OAC with APT group (HR [95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.54 [0.38-0.77], P = .0006]). However, the rate of stroke was similar in both groups (HR [95% CI] = 1.22 [0.80-1.87], P = .36). All-cause and cardiovascular mortalities were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that OAC with APT following TAVR in patients with AF increased the risk of bleeding compared to OAC alone without decreasing the risk of stroke.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Anatomy: Patient Selection and Technical Challenges

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a standard treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Although this technique has reached relative maturity, further optimisation of patient selection and device implantation is essential to improve prognosis. Smaller body size is a predictor of a challenging TAVI procedure due to specific anatomical difficulty and adverse events including annulus rupture, acute coronary obstruction and vascular complications. A newer generation, lower profile TAVI system is useful for patients with smaller anatomy. Moreover, TAVI is superior to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a narrowing annulus because this treatement has a low incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch.